Book Review: "Working Effectively with Legacy Code" - <AUTHOR> http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2017/book-review-working-effectively-with-legacy-code-by-michael-c-feathers/ <comment><USER2> I couldn't disagree with the author's claims more. In fact, I come to this discussion from an oddly prescient position: I'm a former longtime googler who also just happenened to have read the book recently, after years of knowing I should.

My takeaway is: thinking the book is just for hacking around legacy code is wrong. It's both a way to fix that kind of code, yes, but in the process lays out the blueprint for not ending up in that situation in the first place. Besides there being plenty of shitty code (read: no tests, and untestable) scattered around the Google codebase that I had to deal with there was learning how to write my own code better - make it more testable. If I'd read this book sooner I would have been spared a lot of pain in code reviews, where someone who HAD read and understood the book was trying to help me avoid all the pitfalls I was traipsing right into. "Yes I know it's a big class, what's the goddamned problem" I would think, begrudgingly making changes requested and thinking I could be done with all this by now if it wasn't for all this stupid refactoring for no reason other than "testing is easier".

In retrospect I (eventually) learned already most of the lessons this book teaches you... but far more painfully than if I'd read it sooner.

Short version: it's not just for if you have to work with legacy code. It's so you can avoid writing it yourself.</comment>


Ask HN: What's your price pain point for SaaS/software subscription? - <AUTHOR> Basically what's the range of $$$ when you don't care very much of getting a subscription, and when you start to think about it 3x before committing to subscribe? <comment><USER2> $5 is the price I'm willing to pay for a subscription without much thinking. $15 or more I pay only for services I really need and use.

</comment><comment><USER3> I hate having anything hanging over my head. $1 would bother me. I have some monthly subscriptions but I get value out of them.</comment>


US regulator fines Citadel for trading ahead of retail customer orders - <AUTHOR> https://www.ft.com/content/dc3f8fb5-62e7-4774-98bb-28db801589ee <comment><USER2> "Citadel Securities generated $3.5 billion of revenue in 2018."

I bet they are very upset at having to pay a $700000 fine.

<comment><USER3> > As part of the restitution mandated by FINRA, Citadel Securities will > provide restitution to each corresponding firm client for the customer > orders that it executed at prices worse than it traded for its own account

Seems like this could potentially be much more than the $700k fine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > In particular, FINRA claims that following the establishment of its OTC > equity trading desk, the firm sought to program the desk's trading systems > to comply with the Trading Ahead and Limit Order Display Rules by providing > customer orders automated order protection, quote display, and execution.

> "The OTC Desk, however, implemented controls, settings and processes that > removed hundreds of thousands of mostly larger customer orders from those > logics. While those controls, settings and processes had multiple purposes, > they shared a principal purpose of directing OTC customer orders for manual > review and/or handling. Impacted orders were rendered inactive until the > completion of a manual trader review," FINRA said in the document earlier > this month.

How interesting. This is almost certainly a case of the lawyers/compliance talking to the programmers/ops and everyone thinking they're on the same page with how the process needs to work only to find out years later that they weren't.

I wonder how this issue was even identified.

</comment><comment><USER5> Isn't this the company that Robinhood sends the orders to?

</comment><comment><USER6> Non paywall link from another website: [https://www.financemagnates.com/institutional- forex/regulati...](https://www.financemagnates.com/institutional- forex/regulation/citadel-securities-fined-700k-for-breaching-finra-rules/)

<comment><USER7> or [https://archive.is/HbNc1](https://archive.is/HbNc1)</comment></comment>


Using the git index to fearlessly try out risky changes - <AUTHOR> http://osteele.com/archives/2008/05/my-git-workflow

<comment><USER2> I've thought about using the index like that before, but the problem you run into is if you decide you need to go back to, or even just look at, some change several adds ago the data is gone. The index feels like I've just copied some text in an editor: the more time that passes before I use it the more likely I am to either have to check what is there or accidentally overwrite it by copying something else.

My general philosophy right now is that I should only push one commit for each complete feature or bug fix, which wasn't really reasonable in old VCS systems. That lends itself to making micro-commits for almost anything and then using rebase -i to clean up the mess into a single commit. I've recently been experimenting with tagging the pre-rebase commit so that if I want to look at the development history I still can. I use git-stash if I'm in the middle of something and need to change branches for a few minutes, but aside from speed there's no reason it couldn't be a commit as well.

</comment><comment><USER3> Is this article useful for someone who doesn't know git? It would be helpful to have summaries/prerequisites as a first post... As is I can't bring myself to read it.

<comment><USER4> Not really. There are better git tutorials out there - <http://osteele.com/del.icio.us/osteele/git> (from the article).

Git allows you to choose which way you work more than (say) subversion. This article is an example of a slightly different way to work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> why not just use a separate branch for doing those experimental changes ? it just seems too complicated.</comment>


Termination of YouTube Service on 2012 BRAVIA TVs - <AUTHOR> http://www.sony.co.uk/support/en/content/cnt-hn/prd-tvhc/YouTube-service-for-2012-TVs <comment><USER2> I get why the TV manufacturers don't like the concept but TVs should really be dumb displays. Using something like a ChromeCast to get content to the TV makes so much more sense than embedding "intelligence" in a display.

It's the same mismatch of lifecycles that you get with entertainment (and navigation) electronics in cars.

<comment><USER3> It's not the TV manufacturers that don't like that concept it's that consumers don't like the concept. Every TV is a "dumb display", consumers wanted more features.

Sony, LG, Samsung and w/e would love nothing more than to sell you only a panel with video input ports but that is not what people want to buy. People are constantly buying the most feature loaded TV's even at the expense of getting lesser panel quality, inch size and various other things.

<comment><USER4> Do you have any evidence of this? I've never ever talked to anyone that wanted a feature like this in their TV. The manufacturers have incentive, but the consumers aren't asking for it.

And -all- of the interfaces built in to TVs for such things I've used are terrible. Hell, most TVs still can't make a remote/on-screen UI work reasonably. People can talk to their voice agents ("hello _assistant_ , who is the president of the USA") on the toilet and generally expect a reasonable answer. And yet we still have to point some wand at an exact spot on our TVs, press buttons, and hope they register and change channels.

<comment><USER5> I actually have a 2012 Bravia. It has a webcam and a Skype app. When we get a Skype call, a little popup appears in the bottom left corner, and I can accept/decline with the remote. I can then carry out a video call in either full 50 inches or composited with the TV signal. Coolest thing ever.

Digital recording is a great feature too, plug in a USB stick for storage then control and manage recordings with the remote. I actually like to have everything integrated, rather than having to fiddle with my OSMC, which, as an example, in the case of recording would need its own signal input.

My only (yet pretty big) issue with the Sony software is that it is _slow_ to start up. From turning on the TV until it will respond to the remote is easily 40-50 seconds, long after the picture appears. You can't even change the channel or volume.

And, oh yeah, the YouTube app has been broken for years, but I use the OSMC for that.

<comment><USER6> What happens when you're on a Skype call on the TV and want to move to another room? I guess it's like with the old wired phones, you don't move. A 50" display is cool but a tablet or a phone are usually better suited to answer calls.

The only smart feature I'm using of my LG TV is playing videos from USB sticks. It doesn't have some audio codecs common in MKV containers, but when it works 40" is better than a tablet screen. BTW, the LG is quick enough at starting up. I usually keep it completely off, not in standby. Switch on the power, push the remote, get the image: 9 seconds. Maybe on par with old analog CRTs.

I never enabled WiFi because of the terms of service. Even if they are not as invasive as other ToS I saw from other manufacturers, they are way more than they should. I should use the TV to watch things, not to be watched. I already have the PC, tablet and phone for that :-) and at least I can fight there with adblockers and the like.

I have a Raspberry 3 connected to the TV and I could do YouTube with that (it's quite OK). Still the tablet is much better. I could chromecast to the TV but it's not worth the trouble.

<comment><USER7> > What happens when you're on a Skype call on the TV and want to move to > another room? I

I imagine the same thing that happens when you get a call on your Desktop and want to move to another room. "Hey, let me call you back."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Sigh. I kind of miss the old, heavy, dumb-as-rocks TV I grew up with. It turned on instantly. Switching channels was instantaneous - none of this five second Comcast delay - although you did have to get up and punch the physical buttons on the cable tuner[1]. I don't think it even had coaxial input; I remember there were two leads[2] that were held on with a couple screws, so if the picture got snowy, you'd jiggle the wires around to get a better connection.

edit: footnotes

[1] [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Push_but...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Push_button_cable_box.jpg)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin- lead](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin-lead)

<comment> torrent-of-ions I really don't understand how TVs are so bad. You can spend thousands of pounds on one and the interface will be incredibly slow, buggy and take ages to change channels. A £5 raspberry pi is capable of running a faster interface and my old DVB-t cards for PCs were able to switch muxes almost instantly. What is so difficult about putting this capability inside a television?

<comment><USER9> This is a market I've daydreamed about trying to enter. Build a high quality, dumb-as-shit TV and couple it with a small line of high quality receivers with beefy ARM processors and well written software. How hard can this possibly be?

<comment><USER10> you would be surprised. For how many languages do you plan to localize? How many date-formats for the built-in clock? What about a virtual keyboards and input methods? do you support EPG? hbbtv? a rudimentary browser and everything that goes along with that? So you want to support netflix, are you ready to be certified by them, including system security and are you ready to give up everything lpglv3/gplv2 because of the anti tivoization clause?

Will you support multi-tasking? wayland, x11 or something entirely different? You will want to make it usable from some kind of remote.

Do you have QA to test all of that and are they knowledgeable about all the internationalization issues?

You will need a specialist on tuning and decoding of ATSC, DVB, hdmi inputs, upsampling (motion interpolation) to 100hz, 120hz and above. color enhancements, dynamic brightness, the list goes on and on.

<comment><USER9> Well, the receiver would also be pretty dumb. Definitely no networking. You'd hook a Chromecast (PS4, Xbox, etc.) into it to actually stream stuff. The receiver would provide UI for TV tuner switching, arbitrary audio/video routing, an equalizer, that kind of stuff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Richard stallman started the GNU project because he was not allowed to modify closed source printer drivers. [https://www.talisman.org/~erlkonig/misc/free- as-in-freedom-r...](https://www.talisman.org/~erlkonig/misc/free-as-in- freedom-r-stallmans-crusade.pdf)

It would be better for the environment if consumer devices had open source so end users can fix software issues. Reason being end users care about their devices longer than device manufacturers do.

In the meantime a Chromecast dongle will fix the TVs.

Imagine your future TV booting Debian/Ubuntu from an open boot loader via standard micro SD-card.

<comment><USER12> It would be nice, but in the end you gain more flexibility by building a HTPC with the hardware you want and treat the TV as a dumb screen that can receive input from HDMI, DVB-T and DVB-C.

<comment><USER11> True thanks, a htpc would be more long lived.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The "Smart TV" is like those "all-in-one desktop PCs" \-- unless you __really __prioritize the appearance of the thing, like in an architect 's office where clients are visiting, etc. -- it almost never makes sense. The display stays good for a decade and the compute is often obsolete in 12 months -- it makes no sense to bundle them. I have a overheating iMac whose compute I wish I could switch out.

<comment><USER14> The difference is, you sacrifice almost nothing (save a few dollars) to have the Smart TV gubbins inside. The TV still works great as a display -- in fact, my new Smart TV has more inputs and other such non-Smart-TV features than my old Dumb TV did.

Also, I call BS on being obsolete in 12 months. My mom wanted to buy a 20" iMac back in ~2009, and I was hesitant to go along with it, as I felt the same way as you did. Then I realized computers last longer and longer these days, and are approaching display level lifespan.

She's still using that iMac today, and it works great. And guess what, I bought a 5k 27" iMac to replace my 10 year old Mac Pro (which has a high-end- for-its-time 24" Dell 2407WFP connected to it).

The reality is, by the time the computer was too old to be particularly useful, a 1080p 24" display was old hat as well.

I don't disagree it makes the disposable culture a bit worse; I'm not particularly likely to try to repair the iMac after a couple of years (which is one reason I sprung for an extended warranty on it which I typically avoid like the plague), but it's not so bad as you suggest. And, of course, the machine can still be used as an external display (or output to another display if it's the display that fails instead of the computer).

Perhaps your strongest argument should be that Smart TVs may accelerate the decline of standalone streamers. If that comes to pass, TVs may come to look a bit more like the all-in-one computer world.

But for now I'll enjoy my 4k streaming on my Smart TV apps, and replace those functions with standalone devices that do it better, as they come on the market. They're not there yet, though, and I'm not about to throw out all of my other devices and replace them just because I bought a new TV.

<comment><USER15> There is one thing that is painfully missing on any smart TV I've seen: VGA input.

<comment><USER16> VGA has limited bandwidth, so it looks horrible at the scale of a modern TV screen. Show someone a VGA signal on a TV and they'll assume the TV sucks.

<comment><USER17> I was using VGA to drive a 1920x1200 monitor at work for months. The image was more than sufficient to write code on. Most people looking at VGA on a TV at TV viewing distances wouldn't be able to tell the difference. You get more artifacting from the video codec than VGA output.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> "The symptoms being experienced are not a failure of the TV, but are as a result of specification changes made by YouTube that exceed the capability of the TV's hardware."

Which changes? YouTube still streams H.264, and I can not believe that those TVs can not run properly the glue-code scripting, e.g. doing a check of "if old TV, then, use less fancy things". So as others comment here, it looks like an excuse.

<comment><USER19> Likely software to support ads that they didn't want to write code for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> there are trade offs all the way along the convenience spectrum. If you're reading HN, you're probably not in the target market for youtube apps embedded in smart tvs. But these customers do exist.

I imagine the main selling point is they don't have to connect or configure any external set top box or media pc, and they don't have to install or maintain the app. If you don't have the skills (or the time) to do so, this may be appealing.

The polar opposite would be a Linux expert running their own media center - absolute control but at the cost of said time and skills.

<comment><USER21> I am skeptical of smart TVs and smart fridges and the like, but I like having an embedded Netflix/Youtube app because it's not harming me any -- provided the UI is snappy, the UX is good, the TV isn't spying on my pixels -cough- Vizio -cough-, and it doesn't go away like it did here.

I know these are generous assumptions, but if it saves me from having to Bring My Own Streaming Stick and I have no particular brand loyalty and/or ecosystem investment like AppleTV, Amazon, Google Play Store, PlayStation Store, then fine. It's only harmful when it doesn't work as intended, of when my 'smart' TV is so obsolete that it's no longer functional as a 'dumb' TV.

The problem is every TV manufacturer suddenly pulled a Windows 10 and thought to themselves: "Everyone already has our products in their homes, why don't we try to _monetize_ this further? Otherwise we'll never beat Google and Apple!" So they're all trying to build 'platforms' and 'ecosystems' and the like, which is terrible value for the person who doesn't want to re-buy the same DRM'ed movie on four different platforms.

Luckily, more and more of these homegrown smart TV platforms are dying out in favor of Android/Google TV (whatever they keep renaming it to), Roku's licensed software, and Sony's PlayStation ecosystem.

<comment><USER22> > I like having an embedded Netflix/Youtube app because it's not harming me > any -- provided the UI is snappy, the UX is good

People have been putting up with digital cable's crappy on demand menus for a decade, so I imagine they'll tolerate the chunkiness that smart TV apps usually have.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Yet another reason why the internet of things will be truly appalling.

<comment><USER24> It seems like a dream come true when you're in the business of people buying new iterations of the same thing, Which seems to be all SoCs and embedded systems providers these days.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> To me "smart TV" means "we're going to interrupt you randomly to tell you the privacy policy or the T&Cs on something you never use have changed".

The best thing you can do for your TV is not connect it to the Internet. Get a Roku box or similar for all your streaming needs.

</comment><comment><USER21> Potentially related: Youtube updated their TOS [1][2] and posted additional documents that developers need to adhere to [3][4]. These take effect February 10, 2017, but were posted in advance on August 11, 2016.

HN submission: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12409825](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12409825)

[1] [https://youtube-eng.blogspot.com/2016/08/an-updated-terms- of...](https://youtube-eng.blogspot.com/2016/08/an-updated-terms-of-service- and-new.html)

[2] [https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms/api-services- ter...](https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms/api-services-terms-of- service)

[3] [https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms/developer- polici...](https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms/developer-policies)

[4] [https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms/required- minimum...](https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms/required-minimum- functionality)

</comment><comment><USER21> As far as failure modes go, so far so good -- the 'smart' TV will still work, it'll just have one less app. Eventually, as more and more apps raise their minimum requirements (either by necessity or just because), the older hardware will no longer cut it; but the TV will keep working as a display.

The problem will come when the smart TV's OS itself is no longer getting patches.

\---

Are there any details on what Google changed?

<comment><USER26> "Escalator Temporarily Stairs. Sorry for the convenience. We apologize for the fact that you can still get up there".

<comment><USER27> You mean "Escalator Permanently Stairs."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Is there a chance to get a full refund and return a device in general when something like this happens? Some countries have pretty hefty consumer protection laws

</comment><comment><USER29> I have one of the affected TVs and I don't think that I have ever used the YouTube app on it. This is primarily because it has always been hooked up to something smarter: a computer, game console, or Apple TV. The interfaces on smart TVs of that era were abysmal. Now that all of the modern boxes and TVs have voice search and everything, I can't imagine there are too many people who are extremely heartbroken over this. Especially when you look at the price of a Roku or FireStick.

</comment><comment><USER30> I realize it's quite fashionable to bash "smart TV's" in this thread, but I've got a Sony 2016 Bravia and love it. It runs Android TV and has the usual stuff via Android app store (Netflix, Plex, etc). It has built-in chromecast support, too. Everything is nice and responsive; no complaints. The HDMI CEC supports works well, so I can do everything from 1 remote.

<comment><USER16> But will you still love it in 2020?

Home electronics used to last longer than this.

<comment><USER31> The first TV I remember at my parents' place was thrown out after _twenty_ years.

The first TV I bought for my place (admittedly for $999AUD) was thrown out after 5 years - ironically because I wanted a "smart" feature, HDMI CEC. I'm now using a second hand Sony TV that just barely supports the HDMI CEC features I need - enough for it to be driven by a Raspberry Pi, at least.

Our electronics don't last as long but we ask a lot more of them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I have a company that has built a lot of smart tv apps. I can say that the Sony TVs have consistently been the least performing of the bunch. We don't support most 2012 TVs anymore and that's on more solid TVs like Samsung and LG.

This is a pretty natural evolution it's hugely painful to support legacy TVs right now and 2012 is about where they're becoming too old and underpowered.

</comment><comment><USER33> As an owner of a Sony Bravia "smart TV" I'm not surprised to see this. I tried using the features but they were very slow and never seemed to work properly. It was hard enough to keep it connected to my wifi with the $80 wifi dongle I bought. My new Apple TV is so worth the money.

</comment><comment><USER34> For everyone saying "just use Chromecast", note that Vizio now sells that: [https://www.vizio.com/m-series](https://www.vizio.com/m-series) It's flaky, but I don't know if it's more or less flaky than smart TVs.

</comment><comment><USER35> What, it can't decode HTML5 video? What does YouTube need that the device doesn't have?

<comment><USER36> Most likely because the browsers on older generation of smart TVs does not have the capability to work with MSE/EME.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Internet of bricks!

</comment><comment><USER38> TV software is so deeply ordinary.

It's a massive missed opportunity, but TV manufacturers just don't "get" software.</comment>


SPARKL – automate life's little tasks - <AUTHOR> http://sparkl.io/#/main

<comment><USER2> I'd suggest the "About" page needs a lot more text and description and examples - I'm not going to sign up on some vague prose promising some kind of IFTTT-like with unknown services and rules.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you encourage a culture of written communication on your team? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Think about the 'why' of your question. What is the goal that written communication will solve for your team, in your view?

This has two benefits: one, it challenges your own thinking (perhaps the underlying issue could be solved in a different way, which might be more successful); two, it gives you justification which you can use to persuade your team members.

See: Simon Sinek's "Start With Why". Additionally, I've found the "Hands-on Agile" Slack group to be a great community resource for this type of team- focused Q&A.

</comment><comment><USER3> * Lead by example.

* Steer ad hoc discussions toward the issue tracker--whether via stories or spikes.

* Don't let Slack/IRC/Teams be the place decisions are made and documented. They're good tools for conversation starters and finding throw away answers, not good as a record of design and decisions.

* Always be steering ad hoc conversations towards outlets that provide reusable context when it becomes clear that there's something of substance. This could be steering towards issue trackers, wikis, knowledge repos, README.md files, etc.

* Realize that many people aren't natural writers, and accommodate them.

* Hire for writing ability. Find a balance and pair writers with talkers.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

What do you to accommodate people who aren't natural writers?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> As with any other thing you try to encourage, it's not going to work without consensus or decision power.

If you have either, it should be easy to do so.

One easy way to push people in the right direction without much effort though is to allow people to work remotely more. Suddenly, sharing something interesting or weird that happened to them while resolving something gets shared in writing, their aha moment gets told on the open ticket instead of around the watercooler etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> Really interesting idea, thanks for sharing.</comment></comment>


Cardboard Automata, Cranky Contraptions, and Sound Machines - <AUTHOR> https://www.exploratorium.edu/visit/calendar/curious-contraptions-activities-fy2020 <comment><AUTHOR> Curious Contraptions explores small, surreal worlds through fantastical, often amusing mechanical sculptures known as automata. These whimsical flying, sailing, and cycling machines are brought to life by intricate arrangements of handmade cams, cranks, and other simple mechanisms. Each sculpture performs an absurd miniature drama while also reflecting its maker's worldview and sense of humor. Exposed inner workings and low-tech mechanisms invite the viewer to understand how each one comes to life. [https://www.exploratorium.edu/curious- contraptions](https://www.exploratorium.edu/curious-contraptions)</comment>


The left turns up the heat on Zuckerberg - <AUTHOR> https://www.axios.com/facebook-mark-zuckerburg-left-coalition-regulation-c79debfa-5ccd-4af8-a59f-71cb23aa6918.html <comment><USER2> There seems to be a very real danger that Facebook, powerful as it is, may decide that it needs to protect itself, and start doing political deals.

I assume there's no need to spell out how dangerous this would be.

[https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/05/18/alarming- facebo...](https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/05/18/alarming-facebook- teams-think-tank-funded-saudi-arabia-and-military-contractors)

</comment><comment><USER3> And yet when Obama used facebook to do the exact same thing, it was lauded as the future of campaigns. The only difference I see is that after Obama won the election, Facebook conveniently decided to change that policy. How do we know that Facebook didn't intentionally leave that policy open to give Obama an edge over what was and was assumed to be at the time going to be a very close election?

[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o- meter/statements/2018/mar/...](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o- meter/statements/2018/mar/22/meghan-mccain/comparing-facebook-data-use-obama- cambridge-analyt/) (also as I explain latter, i think the "half truth" rating on this link is half truth. Nobody who downloaded the Obama app, knew that their friend list could be used in a way to identify potential voters, especially not in a way that would have raised ethical concerns in the supposed party that "cares" about fair elections)

But of course the left needs to punish Facebook for not properly covering their asses and assuring this weapon could never be used against them.

By the way, what's to say that Hillary Clinton didn't have direct access to the Obama campaign's data as well? I mean considering the fact people's political affiliations very rarely ever change and therefore data mined in 2012 is just as relevant today as it was then, why wouldn't Hillary Clinton and Obama do everything in their power to ensure the left maintains control of the WH; when they essentially wrote the textbook on this kind of thing? (it's also worth pointing out that the cambridge analytica data was mined at the same period in time.)

The very fact that the policy was changed--right after--the election seems to suggest that Facebook had every intention of giving the left all the data they would ever need to get the competitive edge over the right and win future elections.

Put it this way, Facebook HAD to know how it's data was being mined from the Obama app the second it started happening. Why wouldn't they be paying special attention to the behavior of the President's app and it's users?

They also HAD to know the amount of power that data could have when influencing people since that is the very reason why their business is marketable.

And lastly, they HAD to know that putting a plug in it would stop future campaigns from doing the same and the consequences that might ultimately yield on the outcomes of future elections.

I mean we are talking about a company where some of their founders, Sean Parker and Chamath Palihapitiya, talk about how they would have meetings and discuss how they could manipulate their users into becoming addicted to their app. And that is when and where they coined the phrase "dopamine feedback loops".

Which also means we are talking about a company whose primary goal is to design technology that doesn't just try to understand people psychologically, but trying to understand how they can manipulate people psychologically as well.

And we are supposed to just believe Mark Zuckerburg when he says if you asked him 10 years ago if he thought he would be building an app that could one day influence elections, he isn't just full of shit? I wish the senate would have asked him if he knew--6 years--ago that facebook could influence elections...

Also I wish the Senate would have asked him how can he confirm the Obama 2012 Campaign erased their data like they were supposed to, if he couldn't even confirm that Cambridge Analytica did. And then I would want to ask him, in theory is it possible that if the Obama campaign still had access to that data, could it be given to a new campaign. In other words, is it not only possible but strategically likely, that Trump didn't actually even have a competitive edge? and in fact without the Cambridge Analytica data, he would have been at a strict disadvantage considering your policy changed and therefore wasn't able to just take a page out of Obama's book, create his own app, and ultimately receive the same benefits Obama (and potentially HRC) did during their campaigns?

And one last thing, when a user downloads an app on your platform they have a permissions dialog that specifically states what information a user consents to give to the app developer in exchange for using their app. The controversy with Cambridge Analytica's app was that it was misleading users and exposing their friend list's without permission? Can you please explain exactly how Obama's app asked for user's permissions and how Cambridge Analytica didn't? And when asking, did the Obama campaign explain exactly how they intended to use their user's data? When a user consents to give any app (not just facebook) permission to access their info do the user's have the capability to ask why the app is requesting that information exactly?

Can we get comprehensive answers to questions such as,

"Why--exactly--does this app--need--to access my contacts?",

"Why--exactly--does this app--need--to access my friend list?",

"Why--exactly--does this app--need--access to my mic?"

Also is there an internal vetting process in place that ensures app developers are being honest when stating the nature of their intent with regards to permission requests and what they intend to do with the data once it is received? And ultimately why not? Do you believe users deserve--real-- transparency with regards to how their data is being used/abused?

Because ultimately at the end of the day, that is how you go about fixing the core issue we have. User's aren't actually being asked cordially for their permission, they are being given just a more "in your face" terms of service without an explanation and the right to negotiate. What if I want to use facebook's app, but i don't want them to be able to access to my mic as they see fit and im okay with the fact that I can't use the 2 features that require it because I only ever use the 500 that never need to use my mic anyways?

What I am ultimately trying to point out here, is that the permissions not actually being permissions issue isn't just facebook's problem. It's an industry wide issue, and the current permission system only seems to exist in the first place to exempt company's from all the legal problems they smell brewing down the road. Something they'd only ever anticipate and institute knowing all along the malicious nature that is underlying their intent. (I mean steve jobs was the pioneer of this shit. Does anybody really think he cares more about us than Apple's profitability.)

I just think it's so sad that we live in a world now where all mainstream apps are essentially malware and its terrifying to realize that nobody really understands that bad software isn't just the kind of software that opens nonstop porn ads on your desktop and thus make your computer run slow.

<comment><USER4> "I mean considering the fact people's political affiliations very rarely ever change"

Seriously? At least the cliche is that young people tend to be more leftist than older people because students and other young people often work low-end jobs and both experience low-incomes and empathize with people stuck in such jobs for life, but become more conservative as they begin to have higher incomes, own property, etc. and start wanting lower taxes.

<comment><USER3> I think people discover what their true political affiliations are when they become more educated over time. When I was 18 I thought I was a democrat because I had a very liberal leaning towards social views. And then when I started learning about business, regulations, and etc.

I just found that Government are just a bunch of prom kings and queens telling the kids who created lemonade stands that not only did they owe them a cut of their profits, but how and where they could sell their lemonade. And there is a shitload of corruption involved because they will tell you to move your lemonade stand so that they can give the location to a friend.

I believe we need a Government, but I don't believe we need an omnipotent Government that has the power to employ half of the nation despite not having a notion of equity or a competitive pay scale.

So slowly over time I found that I am actually Libertarian and I vote for Republicans because at the end of the day, the only real way the Government can make people's lives better is to get out of the way (and pockets) of the private sector. Which is the real backbone of this country. The private sector is the only sector that has the real power to improve the quality of life and self esteem of Americans, because as FDR put it in his extended bill of rights, every American has the right to a good job.

I think we should have a constitutional amendment that makes it unconstitutional for Congress to raise taxes above 15% for all Americans, and I think the tax payers should have a say in how 5% of their Tax Dollars get allocated into the budget. The President and Congress gets to say where the other 10% goes.

I think if we had a system like that, then everybody would get a little bit of what they want. You care about the state of our national parks? Then say that is where you want a percentage of your 5% to be allocated for this voting cycle. You think our military sucks? Send your bucks there. You think we need to fund the FCC because they got rid of net neutrality. Then go for it. And if you don't really care and think the President or Congress knows best, then allocate your 5% to be distributed according to their best judgement.

Send your tax dollars where you feel they need to go. It's the best way to get a comprehensive understanding of what exactly the people's concerns are.

Perhaps it would be chaotic, but what is to say that democracy shouldn't have an element of volatile chaos in it?</comment></comment></comment>


As Tech Deals Boom, Talk Turns to Bubbles - <AUTHOR> http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/11/19/as-tech-deals-boom-talk-turns-to-bubbles <comment><USER2> I think this is a function of the lack of another sane place to put your money. Right now with interest rates at 0% it's hard to say the economy is going anywhere on sound footing. Would you put your money in treasuries? Stocks? Cash? Past a certain point these things seem more risky than they're worth relative to their potential reward. Investing in another Facebook or whatever at an early stage by comparison seems to be worth a lot more and you have more control over what happens than say owning shares in Citi.

If there is a bubble it's not much to worry about since the investments are fueled by savings and not debt. Debt fueled bubbles make losses so much worse for everyone. The worst case is that some investors get wiped out (or at least what they invested was lost) and we all move on having a few good laughs about how crazy we were back then (how many Twitter services do we need when no one can decide if we even need Twitter).

The number of bootstrapped companies out there suggests that at least some people feel like raising money isn't worth it even in this climate so I don't think this time period is all bad for tech.

<comment><USER3> _If there is a bubble it's not much to worry about since the investments are fueled by savings and not debt._

Do you have any evidence of that? Have you looked at the price of money these days? 2%? 4%? Junk spread as low as 1-2? With QE the price of money is being artificially driven down to drive investment. The dirty little secret is that a lot of that investment comes from borrowing - why not if your numbers show you making 10%-20% and you can borrow for 5%-10%?

The last time the fed held the yields so low and pumped money supply so greatly was the dot-bomb. And a lot of that was shown to be driven by debt when post-mortemed.

<comment><USER4> He is referring to VC investments, which ARE fueled by savings. The LP's of a VC fund are ultra high net worth individuals and pension funds; neither of which invest in alternative asset classes with debt.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It smells like a bubble, but this time around, there are fewer IPOs and the big buys are acquiring for talent too. With the advent of facebook v google talent grabbing, it makes sense to buy startups with crazy smart people early.

This article also needs to take in account of the super angels and the new face of investing these days. Sure, a lot of deals are happening, but a lot of the early funding is coming from many sources and the angels are spreading thin. Come on, NYTimes, did you forget Angelgate?

</comment><comment><USER6> Question for those of you working inside of big companies:

I am sure many of you are getting recruited to join startups. What's the general sentiment in this demographic - are you guys torn between feeling like you should join a hot opportunity now, but in some ways afraid that you might give up that 6-figure salary only to get hit by a burst bubble in mid-2011 and would have to crawl back to a more stable corporate gig?

<comment><USER7> As someone, in their mid twenties, who is currently transitioning from a big company to a startup:

The stability question will always be there, regardless of the existence of a bubble. With a startup, there's always a greater risk of losing your job. If it was about a 6 figure salary, I would just move to another big company, many of which are hiring right now.

A fast paced high risk environment is what I'm interested in, and what I think is best for my career and learning. This transition is a non-issue for me, and independent of market trends.

I don't think 'crawling back to a more stable corporate gig' is a reliable backup plan. However, if I did, why would I lament? I would probably be hired with a comparable salary to that if I stayed on and grew from promotions. More importantly, I will have gained more in the process.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The higher numbers re: valuations I've seen and heard are just under $10M (recent YC startup). Potentially rumors of $20M (Instagram, but was apparently untrue). Not sure which startups are seeing the $30-50M range that Fred Wilson mentions. Clearly, he sees a lot of deal flow, but you'd assume the major tech blogs would cover these startups.

</comment><comment><USER9> We're in a cheap money environment and tech companies are sitting on piles of cash they're genetically predisposed not to distribute back to shareholders. There's only one place for it to go: acquisitions. Meaning we see more deals at higher valuations. It doesn't reflect anything fundamental.

</comment><comment><USER10> $30-50M? Seriously, I will quit tomorrow and get a five person team of proven entrepreneurs also put together tomorrow, if I can get a $30M valuation with a VC coming in for 20% of that.

</comment><comment><USER11> Even if there is a bubble, what does it mean for the app economy? People making money on facebook, twitter, and the App Store might see sales dip if there's a bust, but people aren't going to use free services less. (Although App Store sales won't dip because the app store was built during the last recession).

edit: perhaps this seems naive, but please keep in mind I'm only asking about this one small segment.

</comment><comment><USER3> Seems pretty bubble like to me.</comment>


Ask HN: My site was hijacked, new to security, how to prevent future attacks? - <AUTHOR> UPDATE:
So I thought somehow they were able to exploit something on my site or phish my password and gain root. This does not seem to be the case. It is actually more concerning. I remarked in the original post I was unsure what I had hosted, it turns out nothing.
I have the site pointing at ns1.digitalocean etc. but there is no site up. So that means they must have set up their own site on digital ocean. What will happen if I go to host my site and point it at my domain? <comment><USER2> Are you running any server management software like Webmin etc on it?

edit: based on what you're saying, I'm a bit unclear as to the problem. I would immediately check the security of your domain / domain account. I would check the Digital Ocean server for anything else that might be now running on it, see if they're running any local cron jobs, etc.

Either way, if you think that instance was compromised, you should destroy it after you examine it thoroughly to see if you can find out what happened.

<comment><AUTHOR> It turns out I have NO droplets running. So I am not sure what is compromised. The site must be hosted on the attackers own hardware. Maybe they have my registrar (recently transferred to namecheap) or maybe they just used a stolen credit card to purchase a VPS from Digital Ocean and have just set up the CNames as my domain because they realized I have it unhosted.

So my site/hardware/server has not been compromised, it does not exist. Somehow they have hijacked my domain or atleast have a site hosted at my domain.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Update 2: It is sorted out now, but if someone finds this, I have a question?

In the age of shared VPSs I point my domain at a well-known endpoint of a major hosting provider. How can I prevent people from also setting up a competing set of DNS records with my provider? How would digital ocean know where to send traffic if it had 2 ip addresses with identical DNS settings running on their platform.</comment>


OneHandWizard brings true one hand use to the iPhone - <AUTHOR> https://www.idownloadblog.com/2020/02/21/onehandwizard-2/ <comment><AUTHOR> As phone screens get bigger, I have struggled with full one hand use that reachability and other features have not solved. With my friend Janosch, we built OneHandWizard which allows full one hand use with dynamic scaling of the screen. Hope it inspires phone makers to make something as good since we can only achieve this currently through jailbreak.</comment>


The flying men of Yungas valley - <AUTHOR> http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/2011/05/20115811409577464.html

<comment><USER2> As someone who lived in coastal ecuador for 6 months, and also visited Costa Rica for 2 months, I'd like to confirm the unbelievable absence of the "seven deadly sins". Most of the people in the rural areas live with the sole purpose of bettering the future of their children and community, and the concept of exploiting others for personal gain is completely alien to them. I feel that the subtitles do not do Severo's character justice both when he is talking about why his family lives in La Paz and also when he sees his family for the first time in a month.

Also, tourists may ride these cables in Costa Rica, where they are referred to as ziplines.

</comment><comment><USER3> Anyone know how to get a mailing (shipping) address for the flying men of Yungas valley, or their families in La Paz?

Looks like they could use new harnesses, clips, and pulleys.

</comment><comment><USER4> The way he routinely ties the knot to the bag his kid's in, and then calmly takes off (around the 3 minute mark).. I guess one can get used to anything.

<comment><USER5> His boy is not really pleased by the idea...

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Risking it all - Bolivia <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZEN-qA0e94>

</comment><comment><USER7> This is all very interesting and such, but using a simple, basic aerial tramway is _not_ the same as flying.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_tramway>

+1 for the YouTube movie link [1], very illustrative. This is a documentary well worth viewing. I was surprised that the _cocaleros_ remain a good sense of humor despite their dangerous (and subsistent) living style.

[1] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZEN-qA0e94>

</comment><comment><USER8> By the way, aren't coca leaves, apart from being chewed by the locals as a narcotic, also used to make, you know, cocaine?

<comment><USER9> Coca leaves are not a narcotic, when consumed in the traditional form (chewing or in brewed tea). Caffeine, tea, and tobacco are more addictive than chewing coca.

As you point out, coca leaves can be processed and refined to make cocaine. Analogous to how corn can be refined into high fructose corn syrup. Chewing corn all day won't give you diabetes, but drinking high-fructose corn syrup regularly will have negative effect on your health.

<comment><USER8> Oh, I know, a friend of mine worked in Bolivia for a summer and they chewed the leaves. I think they induced a sense of euphoria, but nothing too dramatic.

<comment><USER10> Having chewed coca leaves quite a bit travelling through Bolivia and Peru I can say the effects are generally quite mild. Done correctly with a small rock of compressed ash (usually from banana peels) your mouth and throat will numb and you will have a slight "buzz". It helps with altitude sickness a bit, but nowhere near as helpful as plenty of rest, water, and time.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you find a US job, as a foreigner? - <AUTHOR>

I have a couple of hw engineer friends in Israel who want to work and live in the USA. I told them they probably need to find a company willing to sponsor them but I wonder if anyone has experience or personal recommendations for staffing companies that specialize in matching international talent. <comment><USER2> Visa is the biggest hurdle I'd imagine.</comment>


The loudest sound in the world would kill you on the spot - <AUTHOR> http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-loudest-sound-in-the-world-would-kill-you-on-the-spot/ <comment><USER2> Sound is particularly impressive when you have low pressure voids in your body, as we all do, with gas in our organs. Long before you'd be linebacker tackled, your intestines and lungs would rupture.</comment>


The Shazam Effect - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/12/the-shazam-effect/382237/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> > "The idea that DJs are just picking songs because they like them is so > antiquated," says Radha Subramanyam, the executive vice president of > insights, research, and analytics at iHeartMedia

-

I imagine that hardly anyone here listens to traditional radio anymore, which makes a lot of sense to me as I'm very particular and selective about my music listening habits too and rarely trust any recommendations.

However recently I started listening to NTS Radio rather frequently. In contrast to the quote above NTS shows are very much made of songs the DJ likes - that is all the qualification they need. No agenda, no hype, no ratings. Every show owner is free to come up with his very own selection, from all genres. Of course it means you have to find the right show for your taste - however if you do it's rather satisfying - I've been able to dig up a ton of rarely known soul gems on "The Do You Breakfast Show": [http://www.mixcloud.com/tag/the-do-you-breakfast- show/](http://www.mixcloud.com/tag/the-do-you-breakfast-show/)

The whole idea and philosophy behind NTS Radio is very appealing, worth a read and a fresh contrast to the data-driven selection process described in the article: [http://www.dummymag.com/features/the-rise-and-rise-of-nts- ra...](http://www.dummymag.com/features/the-rise-and-rise-of-nts-radio)

<comment><USER3> > NTS shows are very much made of songs the DJ likes - that is all the > qualification they need

The idea of DJ-as-selector/curator (rather than producer or 'personality') has had a resurgence in the electronic music scene over the last few years. The tastemaker DJs on stations such as Rinse FM and NTS are increasingly reaching wider out or further back to find old gems and weirder music to build into increasingly eclectic sets, and I think this has been driven partly by the mainstreaming and homogenisation of electronic music culture into "EDM" in the US, but also as an antithesis to the machine-made reductiveness of Spotify genre mixes.

As a regular club-goer here in Europe, it's no longer enough for a club DJ to merely play one genre all night long -- a crowd expects to be surprised and entertained.

If you're looking to widen your scope, the electronic music community has some great resources out there, and you can dive into any of these and find something utterly new and exciting without much trouble:

1\. [http://www.residentadvisor.net](http://www.residentadvisor.net) 2\. [http://www.xlr8r.com](http://www.xlr8r.com) 3\. [http://rinse.fm](http://rinse.fm) 4\. [http://ntslive.co.uk](http://ntslive.co.uk) 5\. [http://musicforprogramming.net](http://musicforprogramming.net)

<comment><USER2> Agreed. Sure, as I have been around when mp3s became a thing and the TranceAddict or MercuryServer forums where the go-to place for electronic music enthusiasts, I'm of course familiar with your sources. In fact I produce and to a lesser extent DJ myself.

Of course since then my taste became much wider and genres are really irrelevant to me today. Which renders the usual recommendations engines hardly useful to me - it seems everyone's coming up with the same suggestions (or they all use EchoNest). In any case it's not a replacement for a real human curator that knows his stuff. Also labels play a pretty big role in this. Despite the evil reputation of the major ones, their smaller siblings are very valuable when it comes to curation and selection. Being featured on kranky, warp, Secretly Canadian, Editions Mego,... well, you name it, is a very strong indicator for quality. Particularly in electronic music this is hardly news.

Speaking of digging up hidden gems and rare classics: Do you know the Numero Group? An utterly fantastic re-issue label that made it their mission to find the most well hidden and unreleased material to give it a proper modern release. The background story is a fascinating read too: [http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/jun/13/numero-group- cr...](http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/jun/13/numero-group-crate- digging-record-label-top-10)

If you want to learn more about them, start here: [http://m.mixcloud.com/NTSRadio/numero-six-hour- takeover/](http://m.mixcloud.com/NTSRadio/numero-six-hour-takeover/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think people misunderstand how & why pop music tends to be simple and banal, relative to more grown up genres. This is kind of tangental to the article, but somehow always part of the discussion about hits. People usually blame labels and such, risk averse and uninspired. I think this isn't the real reason.

Take The Beatles and all the British rock from the mid to late 60s, Stones, Zepelin, etc. They basically took American "delta blues," a rich, but fringe musical tradition and they played their simpler version of it. They weren't (especially at the start) the same level of musicians as the original blues guys. They played it as well as they could, a simpler version. It came without the racial baggage & cultural biases. The result is a more digestible version.

There's a version of this story for Elvis, and lots of other pop icons.

The musical and cultural palates of suburban teenagers couldn't digest bluegrass, boogie boogie, delta rules or other mature folk sounds. They could digest the beetles, a simplified version blended with the pop music sounds people were used to.

The Beatles' music matured and fanned out as did the whole scene that came with them. People could take the harder sounds that they adopted. Rock became its own mature genre. I don't think Kashmir would have sounded as good in 1963 as it did in 1973, before Clapton, Jeff Beck and the other artists from that movement gradually built that guitar style on top of a simplified blues base.

That's what pop is. It's an accessible version of music. Boy bands sing harmonies that you could find in 19th century music that kids would hate. They simplify it, sprinkle it with sounds that kids are used to and package it in my-older-brothers-handsome-friend form.

We see this with a lot of indie music. An eclectic mix of folk music. Django guitar and ella fitzgerald vocals. Its repackaging music for new listeners. Teenagers are new to everything so this type of music works well for them.

It's not a bad thing and its not an insidious plot.

<comment><USER5> I think you're generally right about the fact that pop music _pop_ ularizes more grown-up genres.

But I think you could have picked something different than delta blues as an example. Delta blues was extremely simple when it started out, before the end of the thirties there wasn't even a proper turnaround [1]. If you compare originals from before WW2 to covers by British bands you'll find out that in most cases the British version is more complex.

On the other hand take Frank Zappa's Freak Out and compare it to Sgt. Pepper's…

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnaround_(music)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnaround_\(music\))

<comment><USER4> I was going to go with Prince & Funk. I think there's a similar thing going on. But simplifying a mature & complex style, is only a subset of what pop music does. In Princes case, he made the music more complex but also more lyrical and otherwise more digestible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Related: Creating Shazam in Java [http://www.redcode.nl/blog/2010/06/creating- shazam-in-java/](http://www.redcode.nl/blog/2010/06/creating-shazam-in-java/)

HN discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5723863](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5723863)

More Shazam-related: [https://hn.algolia.com/#!/story/forever/0/shazam](https://hn.algolia.com/#!/story/forever/0/shazam)

</comment><comment><USER7> My company[1] is a similar service for the artisan/premium beverage industry (focusing on coffee, beer, and spirits). We use machine learning and data science to understand what individuals and populations taste in a product, what attributes they're selecting for, and what they like and dislike in the product.

We then use that data to monitor their products in real time for quality control problems (flaws, taints, contamination, and batch variations), and create production and flavor profile optimizations.

I think Shazam (and my company) are offering a valuable service to artists and creators, who never had access to these types of optimizing and feedback tools before. At some level, music and cooking is an art - but its also a business, and the art is based on appreciation and consumption; and thus feedback, assessment, and optimization are critical.

I believe in the future, both music and high end drinks will be created on a near individual level - that they will be targeted and modified and optimized for very small groups and demographics. I believe that is a good thing for everyone; better products, higher quality, made for me, and that its tools like [1] and Shazam that are making this possible.

[1] www.Gastrograph.com

<comment><USER8> I don't know... what you're talking about is something like how Netflix used their data to motivate shows like House of Cards and Orange is the New Black, which they "knew" in some sense would have mass appeal. The masses are easy to please because you can just average over their individual tastes and capture huge swaths of the general population (see also: political parties, popular music, "middle-brow" chain restaurants), but it's much more difficult to get an accurate prediction for a single person. If you zoom in close enough, everyone becomes an outlier.

Also, creating art is not as simple as entering the infinite realm of possible songs (or paintings, or meals or...) and just choosing a set of parameters. Again, a broad set of parameters, sure. I'm going to write a rock song. I'm going to cook a boeuf bourguignon. But how to capture the weird unsystematic idiosyncrasies of any given individual, and do so in a way that doesn't feel soulless and artificial?

<comment><USER7> No, Netflix uses collaborative filters (not feature learning) for recommending shows, and does not collect feature data on individual "consumer" preference (at least not publicly).

What my company does uses sensory and preference data at the individual level, and projects for demographics and populations. Good food doesn't feel fake. Good drinks don't feel fake. In the long run, few products will be made by averaging tastes for the mass market - that's what coke and pepsi are.

<comment><USER9> He isn't talking about "recommending shows," he is talking about how Netflix used data science to determine what shows to produce

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> There's something infuriating about record labels figuring out if something will hit and then jumping on it.

In the record label golden years, record labels could justify their outsized piece of the pie with the idea that (a) the _make_ stars and (b) they take all the risk. These days, digital recording and distributions makes it all cheaper and de-risks record production. This kind of thing de-risks things further.

<comment><USER10> If you don't think a record company would are add enough to justify their share, sign with someone else or keep doing it all yourself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> So now we wait for somebody to come up with a way to fake ratings on Shazam (eg, by using a botnet) and watch a mediocre artist become a sensation? :)

<comment><USER12> [https://xkcd.com/1192/](https://xkcd.com/1192/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> As someone who literally listened to the same tune on repeat for a month I don't see the problem. It was a repetitive, low-dynamic range tune by the way. Perfect for drowning out the noise of the nearby construction work!

If it disappoints the music PhD's that every song sounds the same, maybe they could try to precisely quantify the perfect rhythm imperfections.

</comment><comment><USER14> Shazam is a mystery to me.

I heard of it and thought wow, when I have a song stuck in my head but don't know the name, this App would help me to find it.

But it only worked if the real song is playing right now.

When that is the case, I'm either in a club and can ask the people there what it's called. Or I'm on a video/music streaming site where the name in 99% of the cases is written out.

Okay, sometimes I have a wrongly tagged MP3 or hearing some song in the background of an ad that I like to know the name of, but that happens only <4 times a year.

Are my music-listening-habits so different from the rest of the world?

Where do most people listen to music without the possibility to get the name of the work?

<comment><USER15> Sometimes it's easier to open up an app and see what's playing then go up to the coffee shop employee and ask them what was just on the radio. Then if they don't know, yell to everyone there if anyone knows what song just played.

<comment><USER14> haha, yeah true...

Funny thing is, after writing this post, I remembered an mp3 I had long time, which I didn't know the artist to and shazam found it after 3 seconds listening.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Hmm. So if I'm reading this right, Shazam makes their money from user data? I've used Shazam in the past and never realized that the data was being aggregated and sold. Interesting.

I guess the argument is that the service is free and provides value, so the data can be anonymized and sold?

As far as music goes, this seems backwards to me - and ripe for gaming. It feels as if artists are trying to score some sort of Shazam effect, rather than trying to produce good music and let the chips fall where they may. Music should be an art before a science.

<comment><USER17> There's probably some license boiler plate on the product somewhere that lets them do whatever they want. No argument needed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> > but is it bad for music?

How about we work off the premise that everything the music industry does is bad for music?

</comment><comment><USER19> In the article they mention how robots drumming the perfect beat is off- putting, or less desirable to a listener. The current state of affairs in the dance music world is exactly opposite of that. Most songs are created using programs such as ableton, cubase, FL studio etc. As such you can create a 'perfect' song that will do well.

<comment><USER15> Creating songs with machines/software is different than having machines themselves create the songs. Or what are you saying?

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> > There is no evidence that Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven," one of the > most famous rock songs of all time, was ever played on the radio in the > years immediately after its release

I can confirm that it did in the early 70's - I recall it because it was one my parents didn't change the station on.

</comment><comment> guard-of-terra As someone who doesn't listen to "hits", I fail to see the downside.

Hits already did much much worse things to perception of music than shazam- isation may ever.

</comment><comment><USER21> Is there a paper that describes the algo?

<comment><USER22> Yes, there is: [http://www.ee.columbia.edu/~dpwe/papers/Wang03-shazam.pdf](http://www.ee.columbia.edu/~dpwe/papers/Wang03-shazam.pdf)

It's a quite good read.

<comment><USER21> has anyone implemented an open source equivalent? It would be useful to see some code

edit: found a MATLAB implementation: [https://github.com/LNSD/LNSD- ShazamMatlab](https://github.com/LNSD/LNSD-ShazamMatlab)

<comment><USER23> Also, try echoprint</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Networking at Scale, May 2016 – Recap - <AUTHOR> https://code.facebook.com/posts/1036362693099725/networking-scale-may-2016-recap/ <comment><USER2> Is it just me, or does the JPL video have the incorrect audio stream.

<comment><USER3> I think you're right :(

<comment><USER4> Thanks for the heads up. We're on it.</comment></comment></comment>


Securing Against Infinite Loop - <AUTHOR> how do online IDEs check for infinite loops and prevent the program from running forever? <comment><USER2> They don't. The program runs in your browser. It isn't their problem if it contains an infinite loop. If the page stops responding, you simply reload the page.

Programming contests use a check program that has a time limit on program execution.

<comment><AUTHOR> But if you check Ideone.com and write a code like this:

while(true){}

the page loads but the ide says time limit exceeded after 5 seconds and stops the execution. Now, how do you do that?

<comment><USER3> The _user program_ containing the while-loop could be executed with a _system call_ as:

      executeUserProgram(userProgram, timeout=5)...

alternatively, the server on which the user program runs could monitor user processes and terminate any process using excessive CPU time.

Both approaches look for the _effects_ of an infinite loop instead of the program logic of an infinite loop. Which makes sense since logical analysis for infinite loops is the Halting Problem and NP-Hard.

<comment><AUTHOR> yes that is what i want. is executeUserProgram() a system call? how do i implement this in windows. I am thinking of forking a process and then kill the other process after certain amount of time. will it work?

<comment><USER3>
      executeUserProgram()

Is an abstraction. I made up the name to explain how the behavior might be implemented in the abstract. Implementing the abstraction in a way appropriate for an actual program is software engineering based on the actual program's actual constraints.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Founders: It's not 1990. Stop treating your employees like it is - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@tikhon/founders-it-s-not-1990-stop-treating-your-employees-like-it-is-523f48fe90cb#.c3l8z068j <comment><USER2> _Founders complain constantly they can't hire engineers._

There are currently too many startups. The risks aren't worth it for most people working at established companies. Which leaves a smaller pool of potential recruits.

How much more of this do we need: It's "tinder for cats". Such a can't miss idea, why won't anyone join us for close-to-zero equity and half-salary? But wait, we have a ping-pong table! We have cots and showers. No need to go home, ever!</comment>


Mother of all demos: Life as we know it turns 50 - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/life-as-we-know-it-turns-50-1543786471 <comment><AUTHOR> I met Doug Engelbart after he received an award in SF. The guy was truly amazing giving me deep answers to all my questions.

What is truly sad is that the last twenty years of his life he repeatedly failed to raise funds to continue 'inventing the future'. I don't know if it was ageism or something else but it was a genuine tragedy some firm couldn't have backed him in setting up a small research lab.

Here's a link to bypass WSJ security:

[https://outline.com/b5N9VC](https://outline.com/b5N9VC)</comment>


Blackstone to Acquire Ancestry.com for $4.7B - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ancestry-m-a-blackstone-group-idUSKCN2512ES <comment><USER2> As someone who is interested in genealogy it's a bit frustrating to have so many different services competing to hoover up various data sets and hold them in their private fiefdoms, each of which requires a fee.

FamilySearch is the one major exception, mostly I believe because of their deep religious obligations. The Mormons microfilmed a staggering collection of data over the decades and it has all been getting digitized. The problem is, some of their digitized collections are now no longer available because the custodians of the original records seem to have signed deals with some of the private genealogy services.

Ancestry and companies like them, do provide the service of indexing many of these records which is no small task, but most of these documents are public records, and I don't understand why they shouldn't be available to anyone. I know for example FamilySearch has digitized images of all the Scottish censuses back to the 1841 but you can't look at the original records any longer. There are many other examples like this... original WWII draft cards for the US used to be available there, now you have to go to Ancestry and pay a fee.

<comment><USER3> Ex-mormon and ex-partner of a (secular) genealogist reporting in.

Every bit of non-archival information the Mormons have should be annotated with [citation needed]. There is an appalling amount of wishful thinking and supposition in their genealogy data. You are in effect looking at research on a par with a high school research paper. It's all sourced from people who have been doing this for a short time and are seeking out indications that they are done, not that they are correct.

Though I do agree that anyone who is willing to build a bomb-proof archival facility is worthy of a degree of respect.

(Those salt dome film archives we have in the great plains are amazing too)

<comment><USER4> What non-archival information are you talking about? Everything I see on familysearch is primary documents or text indexed directly. Anything else are simply trees that others have created. And I definitely wouldn't trust that info blindly because users do really get overzealous in trying to trace their lineage. But family search allows you to attach primary documents to all names so you can easily confirm whether that info is valid or not.

<comment><USER3> Genealogist was constantly getting upset because someone would see a John Johnson in the same town in roughly the same age bracket and say that's him, make the link and move on without a second thought.

Problem is, our fascination with unique names is very recent. Our forebears were highly unoriginal with names, language barriers (including illiteracy + accents) would sometimes unintentionally see a person get a slightly different name in a new town. She had a guy with three names, and a suspicion that when he disappeared that he didn't die in a ditch, but instead finally changed his name on purpose.

Looking through my mother's research, I found what I thought were first cousins marrying, so I backed away slowly. Genealogist saw this a lot. Just mark it done and don't think about it any more.

After some more time with genealogist I finally looked at it more closely. This guy found himself a wife who was six days younger than his paternal cousin of the same name, from an unrelated family. Apparently nobody in this fucked up little town could figure out how to name their kids. Everyone named a kid after grandma, or married someone with grandma's name, and half of them had a sister named after her. Nine. There were nine women, by birth or marriage, in 3 generations, with the same first name, in the same town. I can't imagine family gatherings.

Ever wonder how you get 'Peggy' from Margaret? I don't anymore. Somewhere there was Grandma Margaret who just wanted to nap in peace and so she nicknamed her granddaughter Peggy so people would stop yelling her name.

<comment><USER5> >I found what I thought were first cousins marrying, so I backed away slowly.

This was and, to an extent, still is quite normal, so I'm not sure why people have such an issue with it. Genetic issues build up if you keep doing it for generations, but unless the first cousins were raised together there is none of the power imbalances at play. Those who were raised together have an effect kick in so that they see each other as siblings and don't marry.

Even though in your case it didn't happen, it isn't something worth worrying even had it occurred.

<comment><USER6> If both parents have a recessive gene for a recessive genetic disorder, their offspring will inherit that disorder. That's why people have such an issue with it. It doesn't take multiple generations for this to happen. But I agree that it'll get much worse if it keeps happening, as heterozygous couples will eventually produce these recessive offsprings, who, when mated, will produce children with these disorders.

<comment><USER7> > If both parents have a recessive gene for a recessive genetic disorder, > their offspring will inherit that disorder. That's why people have such an > issue with it.

This is simply not accurate. Or rather, it's partially accurate, and it's only part of the story. The increase in risk isn't huge, and the amount it happens effectively leads little to be concerned about.

"Contrary to widely held beliefs and longstanding taboos in America, first cousins can have children together without a great risk of birth defects or genetic disease, scientists are reporting today. They say there is no biological reason to discourage cousins from marrying."

"'In some parts of the world,' the report says, '20 to 60 percent of all marriages are between close biological relatives.'"

"Dr. Motulsky said researchers did not know why marriage between cousins was viewed with such distaste in the United States. He said some of the revulsion might have stemmed from the eugenics movement, which intended to improve the human race by deciding who should be allowed to breed. The movement flourished in this country early in the 20th century." [1]

[https://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/04/us/few-risks-seen-to- the-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/04/us/few-risks-seen-to-the-children- of-1st-cousins.html)

<comment><USER8> _" In some parts of the world,' the report says, '20 to 60 percent of all marriages are between close biological relatives."_

Probably isolated areas, like small islands or remote settlements in the wilderness where there is not much to choose from.

I've lived a year in such a place and, while there weren't genetic illnesses that I was aware of, I wouldn't use that place as evidence of how inbreeding is innocuous. Let's leave it at that.

<comment><USER7> > I've lived a year in such a place and, while there weren't genetic illnesses > that I was aware of, I wouldn't use that place as evidence of how inbreeding > is innocuous. Let's leave it at that.

So you... didn't see any genetic issues, thought that they were sub-par humans, and are blaming inbreeding? That's not a great look on your part.

I suggest we stick to studies and data, and leave it there instead.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm a former investor in the company. Many comments here focus on the DNA business, but the company treats it as more as lead gen, a "cheap" way to get new customers in and later to subscribe to their family tree product that prints cash. The DNA business is breakeven but that's a lot cheaper than funding TV shows like Who Do You Think You Are - which was their old marketing tool.

Funny anecdotes: \- they own findagrave.com which is exactly what it sounds like \- they paid $50mm at one point to the Mormon church to effectively shut down their only competitor (family search.org). They also offered ancestry.com membership for free to every Mormon as well. The agreement handed over Mormon church's records making Ancestry's database broader. \- they sometimes call themselves a "Social Network for dead people" because you can opt to make your family tree public, allowing you to see connections/overlaps between your ancestors and others.

<comment><USER10> FamilySearch is alive and well. What are you talking about there?

<comment><USER9> Here is the [link to the investment]([https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/central/provo/ancestr...](https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/central/provo/ancestry- com-joins-forces-with-lds-owned- familysearch/article_4ce0e3fc-067a-5546-8f00-a0d0e111033a.html)). The way they justified it to investors is that this removed the threat of FS ever competing with then in their core business. Back when Ancestry was public, they listed FS as their [#1 competitor]([https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1469433/000095012309...](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1469433/000095012309028902/d68252orsv1.htm)). Here is a [story]([http://www.ancestryinsider.org/2012/07/ancestrycom-laps- fami...](http://www.ancestryinsider.org/2012/07/ancestrycom-laps-familysearch- in.html)) from 2012 showing how the two companies were measured against each other for key content digitizations

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This has huge, far reaching privacy concerns.

How many folks here would like to give their DNA information to private equity?

<comment><USER11> _" Blackstone is buying Ancestry.com from private equity firms Silver Lake, Spectrum Equity and Permira."_

That cat was already out of the bag.

<comment><USER12> This - everyone freaking out over this is right, but ummmm, years too late.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> People who hand over their DNA won't care in the slightest. For the rest of us this confirms our understanding.

<comment><USER14> Anyone who was born in California after 1983, has had their DNA collected by the state.

[https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/05/08/california- biob...](https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/05/08/california-biobank- stores-baby-dna-access/)

<comment><USER15> [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/09/14...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/09/14/kuwait- plans-to-create-a-huge-dna-database-of-resident-and-visitors-scientists-are- appalled/)

This was four years ago, I wonder what the status is today.

Key sentences from the article:

 _There would be serious punishments for those who resist: Refusing the compulsory testing could mean a year in jail or a $33,000 fine_

 _Kuwait 's government says the database could be used to fight terrorism and crime_

Ahh yes - the old, oft used and worn out terrorism excuse ...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Beware changes to TOS. That seems a particularly dangerous dataset.

When you buy a rental property you have to abide by current leases until they expire. There out to be something roughly similar for PII, acquisition, including actively enduring that everyone can have their days expunged.

</comment><comment><USER17> I changed my mind about DNA acquisition / privacy concerns after reading the backstory of the Golden State Killer: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_James_DeAngelo](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_James_DeAngelo)

Officers uploaded DNA from a rape kit and got back a family tree, then investigated all 2,000 possibilities. Problem solved.

He'd eluded capture till the ripe old age of 77 or so, after having raped around 50 women and murdering several by beating them to death with logs.

Can someone help me understand some concrete scenarios where DNA testing is clearly a bad thing? Because it seems to be a net win for society. Leave your DNA at a crime scene -> you've left your ID.

<comment><USER18> I don't mean to be dismissive, but engineers tend to simplify these problems, as if the legal system is a perfect justice-dispensing black box. But that's not how it works. This is a question of ethics and moral weights. This is why we have things like _habeas corpus_ , chain of custody, rules about juries and evidence, and all kinds of things.

DNA acquisition is rife with privacy concerns. The chance that some criminals might elude capture is one of the implications of why, for example, we don't implant everyone with a tracking chip, or require people to report their whereabouts to the government. If everyone had a tracking chip, no one could commit crimes any more, right?

This is a reductio argument, but it shows why what might seem like "sure-shot" strategies (versions of which, in some cases, have been implemented in authoritarian governments) were definitely not "net wins" for society.

<comment><USER17> I urge you to spend time reading the Wikipedia page of the golden state killer. Put yourself in the victims' shoes. Imagine someone waking you in the middle of the night with a floodlight, shoving a gun in your face, screaming at you to lay on the floor while they put dishes on your back, saying "If I hear these fall, I'll kill everyone." Then he takes your loved one to the livingroom and mercilessly rapes her for hours.

The ethical argument cuts both ways. Not only did that scenario happen, but it happened _fifty times_. He was unstoppable by anything but DNA.

How, then, is it ethical to look someone in the eye and say "Your lover was murdered, and we could find who did it, but we won't"?

<comment><USER18> > The ethical argument cuts both ways. Not only did that scenario happen, but > it happened fifty times. He was unstoppable by anything but DNA.

The atrocities committed by authoritarian governments by far exceed the emotional force of your argument. From the Holocaust, to the Great Leap Forward, to the Holodomor. We're talking so much suffering that you can't even _comprehend_ it (think of it like a moral neutron star). _Millions_ murdered, raped, and tortured over the course of _decades_. Given what history has taught us so far, the ethical downsides of authoritarian carte blanche by _far_ exceeds the downsides of erring on the side of protecting individual rights.

<comment><USER17> DNA testing revealed that I am 47% Jewish, so yes, the holocaust argument is particularly relevant. I have weighed these concerns. But you're vaguely gesturing towards atrocities and saying "There are good reasons, right there!" And I just don't see them.

Will you please walk me through a scenario that starts with DNA testing and ends with the murder of millions of people? Because certain unnamed countries seem to already be doing that, and they are either already using DNA or don't need it.

The argument here seems to be "if we let the US do this, there is a very real risk of authoritarian overreach." Sure, I see that. I just don't buy it. What specifically is the concern with, say, the US or Britain using DNA testing?

Even if the world mandated DNA testing tomorrow for the entire population, we would largely be in the same position we're already in, thanks to the internet and smartphones.

I realize this is an unpopular stance. But is it mistaken?

<comment><USER19> > Will you please walk me through a scenario that starts with DNA testing and > ends with the murder of millions of people?

Imagine a genetic marker predisposes someone towards crime X. Now imagine that in the hands of law enforcement.

If X happens one of the first things they'll do is round up everyone with genes for X and try to place them at the scene of the crime.

The problem with that is that it means nothing. Just because a person is more likely to do X does not mean they've done X.

How do we know that will happen? Because it already happens with DNA evidence today. It weighs far more heavily in cases than it should. It may prove that you were there, but it doesn't show what you did. And that's a problem. Juries aren't generally good at realizing what DNA does and does not show.

You might think "Well, the defense should do a better job at debunking the DNA evidence". Yeah, they should. However, it's a long uphill battle to educate someone. Most people still think lie detectors and handwriting analysis actually work. Hell, many people believe that "essential oils" have mystical healing properties. You want to walk those people through the long process of "correlation is not causation"? Good luck. All the prosecutor has to do is get a DNA analysis finished which proves the presence and a cop to say "Oh, he was really evasive when I arrested him".

The state of our justice system is perfectly summed up by this tweet.

"I actually wore a bandana covering my face, nose down, to go to the bank today. Whole time I'm thinking, 'I've convicted people on less evidence than this ...'", Andy McCarthy [0]

It takes staggering little evidence to convict someone of a crime and the general public sees DNA evidence (due to shows like CSI) as absolute proof of guilt.

This may not be "murder of millions" but it certainly wouldn't be a place I'd want to live. I'd rather not be arrested by a lazy cop because I happened to go to the bank the same day it was robbed.

[0] [https://twitter.com/andrewcmccarthy/status/12581541951040184...](https://twitter.com/andrewcmccarthy/status/1258154195104018432?lang=en)

<comment><USER18> I very purposefully avoid hypotheticals which is why I didn't reply to @sillysaurusx (because you're just debating fantasy), but this is a good post and seems entirely plausible within the next century.

PS: I really wish people would stop mass downvoting @sillysaurusx. This is a pretty good discussion.

<comment><USER17> (It's okay! Karma shmarma -- I enjoyed talking with you too. Lots of people made some excellent points.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Some commentary from another that actively does genealogy as a hobby:

i think it will be good cause the old guys were mis managing

In what ways?

I know several 3rd party developers that were just begging for the opportunity to talk to anybody in the organization about how they could configure there software to have the least impact possible on Ancestry, and they wouldn't reply. And then one day they sent a Cease and Desist order, which alienated thousands of customers who relied on those 3rd party apps. Stuff like that. Nobody listens there.

ah the totally "This is our IP, you can't use it" vs "This is a sales opportunity" mindset.

it's worse than that, they just didn't care.. and then they tried to sell themselves and wanted to minimize costs, and blamed 3rd party guys for how backed up their servers were and bad mouthed them. Tried to make themselves look more profitable than they are bad culture thing. almost a monopoly and it's a reputable private equity place - not some vulture company somebody that will come in and challenge their business model but not tell them how to run their business

</comment><comment><USER21> This is huge! Congratulations to a Ancestry! This is one of a few billion- dollar-plus exits of a startup company in Utah over the past 2 years, with others such as Qualtrics and PluralSight also coming to mind. We're starting to see more unicorns come out of Utah. As someone who lives in Utah, that's great!

<comment><USER22> How is ancestry.com a startup at this point? It was founded in 1996.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Why is genealogical data so valuable?

<comment><USER24> There's an incredible amount of uses for high quality genealogical data:

-Actuaries/insurance companies: Longevity is largely heritable

-Drug Development/Pharma: The newest drugs are all gene therapies and data sets provide amble grounds for deep neural networks. Identifying potential causes of curable conditions, or identify a marketable consumer base.

-Police/Surveillance: I believe a genealogy database is actually how the Golden State killer was caught.

Certainly there are other use cases, but these are the most obvious to me.

<comment><USER25> Is the first legal?

The second .. there are big public DNA databases, and they are adding more and more people every day

The third one seems the most important

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'm surprised Wikitree isn't mentioned in this thread anywhere. Its a nonprofit.

</comment><comment><USER27> Can we not have our DNA information deleted on demand. At least within the EU it comes under GDPR.

Any leaks make ancestory responsible, that can be huge.

<comment><USER28> I coined a phrase about it:

"Anything that can be leaked, it eventually will."

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Do any of these sources work for new immigrants?

</comment><comment><USER30> Well this sounds nefarious. A group buddy buddy with governmental and NGO agencies owning ancestry. What could go wrong...

</comment><comment><USER31> mistake. their data is trash. contains less than 1% of genome.

<comment><USER32> Yep, agreed. If you look at companies like Nebula Genomics [1] (disclosure: I'm a founder) or Dante Labs [2], they're doing whole genome sequencing for comparable prices. I'm not sure why we aren't seeing a more prevalent shift to next-gen seqencing. [1] [https://nebula.org](https://nebula.org) [2] [https://dantelabs.com](https://dantelabs.com)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Ah yes, a PEG purchasing a company. History has shown that this will obviously result in good things for the company!

<comment><USER34> Thought same: with covid depressed co's the leveraged buyouts / peg activities driven by politically connected free cash is coming big time .. talent will get suckered into debt so these players take it</comment></comment>


Georgia passenger with gun in carry-on goes unnoticed by TSA - <AUTHOR> http://kutv.com/news/offbeat/georgia-passenger-with-gun-in-carry-on-goes-unnoticed-by-tsa <comment><USER2> _TSA employs a robust security system involving multiple layers of security, both seen and unseen, to protect the traveling public, including a well- trained frontline workforce_

"Well trained" in the same sense that the guy making your burger at McDonalds is "well trained". And let's face it, most of these TSA goons probably _would_ be working at Mickey D's if it weren't for the TSA. Not exactly America's best and brightest, that lot. What I can't see is why anybody is even surprised when this stuff happens.

I walked into an airport a year or so ago, headed to Chicago and halfway through the security line realized that I still had my folding knife clipped to my belt. I wasn't going to go all the way back to the car to stow it by that point, so I just jammed it in my bag and figured I'd take my chances. My bag went through the scanner without a peep and I carried the knife on the plane with me.

To their credit, the TSA crew in Chicago found it when I went through security on my way back. But the thing is, I wasn't really _trying_ to conceal it. I just jammed it in randomly, making no special effort to obscure or hide it or anything. I really expect if I'd carefully wedged it in between my Nook and a USB harddrive or something, it would never have been found.</comment>